Lee Lime Corporation (ALJ decision, July 20, 1984)

Plain-English summary

MSHA cited an excessive nuisance dust condition at Lee Lime Corporation's quarry and mill. The Secretary asked to settle the single citation for $10, down from a proposed $20 penalty. Judge Paul Merlin declined to approve the settlement because the assessment sheet lacked information needed to assess a penalty and the Secretary had not justified a finding of no negligence or the further penalty reduction. He ordered the Secretary to file an amended settlement motion within 30 days. This order did not resolve the citation or assess a penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: Section 110 of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 820, on civil penalties; the citation's safety standard is not identified.
• Outcome: Proposed $10 settlement disapproved pending an amended motion within 30 days.
• Key point: The judge needed the penalty factors and a reason for reducing the proposed $20 penalty before he could consider settlement.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1730 K STREET NW, 6TH FLOOR WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

July 20, 1984

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. YORK 84-9-M Petitioner A.C. No. 19-00018-05503 v.
Lee Quarry and Mill
LEE LIME CORPORATION,
Respondent

DISAPPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
ORDER TO SUBMIT INFORMATION

The Solicitor has filed a motion for approval for settlement for the one citation involved in this matter.

The Solicitor asserts that the assessment sheet which he has submitted contains findings concerning the size of Respondent's business, the health or safety standards vio- lated, prior history, negligence, gravity, and good faith. This is a single penalty assessment and contrary to the Solicitor's representations, the assessment sheet has no information whatsoever on it. I do not, therefore, have before me the information necessary to make a de novo pen- alty assessment as authorized by section 110 of the Act.

Moreover, the Solicitor states that the "excessive nui- sance dust condition cited was not known to the operator nor was it caused by its negligence." The dust condition may not have been known to the operator, but this does not mean that it should not have known. Based upon what the Soli- citor has told me, I would not be warranted in finding that the operator was not negligent.

I am also surprised that the Solicitor recommends reducing the proposed penalty from $20 to $10. $20 denotes a lack of gravity. For a further reduction in this minimal penalty to be warranted, there must be additional justifica- tion such as imposition of the original penalty would impair the operator's ability to continue in business. The Solici- tor has submitted no such information..

In light of the foregoing, therefore, it is Ordered that within 30 days, the Solicitor submit an amended motion for settlement which complies with the requirements of the Act.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge

1780
Distribution:

David L. Baskin, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. De- partment of Labor, John F. Kennedy Federal Building Govern- ment Center, Room 1607, Boston, MA 02203 (Certified Mail)

Frank McQuade, Vice President, Lee Lime Corporation, Box 250, Lee, MA 02138 (Certified Mail)

/nw

1781